Pages

Monday, 31 May 2010

Another month, another wave of testing blog posts. What can I say? Variety is spice of the testing blog life! And it's edition number 10!

Challenges

For people familiar (or not) with smurfs then have a look at the challenge by Markus Gärtner. The write-up is worth a look too.

Lannette Creamer went all trekky with a testing challenge, here. It generated a fair bit of interest - but I think I was the only one to use the microwave oven heuristic.... An insightful summary and reflection popped up too!

Bites

Curiosity: Lynn McKee wrote a good summary of Gil Broza's interview with Michael Bolton. There's also a link to the audio.

Comprehensive: As a first blog post Felipe Knorr Kuhn started with driving Selenium from Java, here.

Animal Welfare: Frog eating was the eye-catching hook from Anuj Magazine about getting tasks done - even the unpleasant ones.

Trans-what? A transcript and analysis of a transpection between Michael Bolton and James Bach on expected results and inputs makes worthwhile reading.

Bug Rebellion:Andy Glover gave a cartoon view on bugs being reproducible - or was it a case of the audience not agreeing with the message at a conference? Mmm, you decide...

Model Count: How many models do you use in testing? Don't know? Interested in finding out more? Then take a look at Rikard Edgren's take, here.

Automation for bug finding or for testing or something completely different? Dorothy Graham presents her view for testing, here.

Automated Exploratory Testing? Although not strictly a blog post Rob Lambert started an interesting discussion (different viewpoints) on the STC, here.

On Writing

Marlena Comptonwrote about the positive contribution made to testing by writing.

The writing about testing peer conference got a rounded summary from Chris McMahon.

A forthcoming "Ask The Tester" article by Matt Heusser was given the heads-up, here. It's your chance to send in questions so take a look!

The C-word

Keyboards have been getting warm recently. There's been a range of views and discussion circulating around certification.

Tuesday, 18 May 2010

Recently, there's been a bit of a commotion, kerfuffle, a minor hullaballoo - Well, when I say recently, it's been going on a little while - ebb and flow, coming and going, just like a pleasant memory, bad smell, nightmare, whatever - take your pick!

I started this post over a year ago - but after a post from James Bach, here, I was prompted to finish this post. So, here's my take.

Before
Ambivalence!
Yes, that was my feeling towards certification before I encountered the ISTQB.... I'd heard of it, even been asked about it in interviews - I didn't have it and saw no reason for one. It hadn't affected my employability (as far as I know.)

It was about 2 years ago when my shop embarked on a programme of certification - I don't know the reasoning behind it - it was policy and I had more important things to think about. So folk started getting booked on an ISTQB foundation level course with an exam at the end.

The syllabus seemed interesting at first glance - another take on items and approaches I'd already worked with - I'm always open to new avenues of learning. Maybe a standardized terminology so that all could understand terms - whether new tester or old in the tooth. That's gotta be good, right? That was a hope/wish for me after a skim of the syllabus.

During
The actual course was interesting enough - but it was clear that it was geared to passing a multiple choice exam.

There were aspects of the course that didn't quite sit right for me - definitions and terminology - I'd been a tester for a good while at this point and now I was being told to unthink some ideas - even though I could argue the case for using my definition - that wasn't the point.

The point was to pass a multiple choice exam - then you could think how you wanted.

Hmm, ok, paradise lost! Is the idea of standard terminology is just boiling down to an exam?

The idea of standard terminology maybe wasn't such a utopia - with a relatively easy exam these terms as well as the certificate would just be bandied around - just another keyword/buzzword to put on a CV.

After
To me that doesn't do a tester any good to only use standard terminology. If they think that testing is about using the right terminology instead of thinking what they're talking about - and even expressing it in alternate ways - then they're missing the point. That's sad!

The tester has to be able to use the local terminology and definitions if needed.

I've worked against a certain amount of "test management"-speak in the past. I think it's great that testers can get up and articulate their ideas to both their peers and managers. For this I think a certain amount of terminology can get in the way. And that's a shame!

When I talk to non-testers (managers) I go to some lengths to emphasize the difference between testing and good testing - and for me good testing starts with yourself - expressing your ideas and making yourself heard and understood - sometimes putting ideas in simple language. And that's important!

Ambivalence!
Yes, that was my feeling after the coure.

Now
There's still a fair bit of ambivalence for me. I haven't benefitted from the certification.

I used to think the course could be a useful intro for a new tester. Now, I think there are better ways - routes for self-learning, self-practice and mentoring. These are much more effective - and ultimately gratifying.

I don't want to reside in a swell of buzzwords - I think it's time to talk about what you value as a tester.

Sunday, 2 May 2010

What first impressions do you get from "eyes wide shut" and "eyes wide open" as applied to testing?

Let me do a quick mind-dump, word association thing - the order below is exactly how it turned out - I then went back to add a bit of detail between the bullet-points. You'll have to excuse the odd Monty Python moment...

These three are very similar - when the tester is switched on and ready to react, think ahead and even pre-empt.

In the zone

When all senses are engaged and the tester is questioning the product it's similar to the sporting equivalent of being "in the zone".

Feedback

The tester is questioning to give good feedback. Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition. Questioning is our main tool, questioning and feedback, ohh...

Exploratory

Map-making in real time!

Investigative

The best of journalistic and scientific investigation - following-up on previous experience, hints and clues with the information in front of you.

Ideas

The activity generates new ideas - either for further testing, how to solve test problems, feedback on the product or how to improve the product.

Note, I don't consider this as scripted vs non-scripted. I consider it more "good testing" vs "not-good testing" (I place no other emphasis on it than that...)

There are some cases where scripted testing is necessary (even a legal requirement) and others where it's needed as a guide.

My take on buccaneer testing and parrots - they are different species and unless the parrot is supposed to do everything-by-rote then it's the "eyes wide shut" case. I've got another take that I'll expand on in another post.

Of course, if the parrot is a Norwegian Blue then it definitely ain't dead and it's actually very good testing! :-)

Saturday, 1 May 2010

April was an active month blog-wise on a number of fronts. There was some conference activity, some planned and some spontaneous. Spontaneity was also seen on the testing front with the much-tweeted #parkcalc.

A real variety from new announcements, some detailed analysis and other thought- and discussion-provoking posts - exactly how it should be!

Enjoy!

Charting

Anne-Marie Charrettwrote a piece on combining mindmaps and mnemonics. She even makes her mindmap available if you want to download it. Anne-Marie also compiled a list of the testing tips from the first Tag Tuesday #dttip.

Reinder Otterposted a slideshow on Self-Organisation. If you're into self-organizing teams then take a look.

ConferingACCU2010 was hit by the flight restrictions over Europe from the Islandic volcano - I won't even try and spell it (the one beginning with E and followed by lots of vowels.) Some people made, some didn't and some had to make alternative arrangements.

Possibly the post that generated the most interest from the ACCU arena was Robert Martin's take on software testing and professionalism. This not only generated lots of comments, tweets but quite a few blog posts.

ST&P announced their dates and call for participation at STP Con 2010.

Matt Heusser presented the case for attending as an opportunity, here. Will you answer the call? I'm tempted!